This is in response to your request for my personal comments on Mr.
Drayton's memo of December 4, 1978.

First of all, let me tell you how surprised and pleased I am that he
did not object to any of the regulations which I had been responsible for
before my transfer. Secondly, I sympathize with his concerns about the
impact of the regulations. There are, however, solutions to the problems
he raises which are much less costly both in terms of economic impact and
the impact or public health than the solutions he suggests.

I. Small Firms

I share Mr. Drayton' s concern about small firms but in order to solve
the problem we must first understand it. Mr. Drayton's mention of "this
extra five percent" of the waste sounds as if he feels it represents an
incremental problem. This implicitly assumes that the environmental and
human health problem is proportional to the quantity of waste generated.
This sort of reasoning may be valid in the water area where everyone is
discharging into the same river so that it makes sense not to regulate
the numerous small generators who may contribute only five percent of the
waste, but this is not the case for hazardous waste.

Hazardous waste can be disposed of in many different ways and places,
some good and some bad. Experience has shown that many damages to human
health have been caused by quite small quantities of hazardous waste inadequately
disposed. It is closer to the truth to say that the hazardous waste problem
is proportional to the number of generators than to the quantity of wastes
generated.

There are several reasons for this. First, while it is true that many
large firms are unaware of the hazardous nature of their waste and the
environmental inadequacy of their disposal, this ignorance is more prevalent
among small firms. Second, it is easier to improperly dispose of a small
occasional batch of hazardous waste and not get caught, than to dispose
of large quantities continuously. Thirdly, it has been my observation that
the most important single factor which correlates with inadequate disposal
is profitability. Companies which take short cuts in disposing of hazardous
wastes are frequently in a profit squeeze. As you know, this can happen
to small companies as well as large ones.

On the other hand, I share Mr. Drayton's apprehension for regulating
the "thousands of the tens of thousands of resistant, resentful, and unpoliced
small firms". The solution which, as you will recall, I have suggested
many times is to encourage and develop alternative mechanisms for collecting
the wastes from small generators. For example, in the attached memo of
May 28, 1978, I proposed a scheme for having hazardous waste collection
firms assume the generators responsibility by mutual agreement with the
generator. This relieves the generator of the administrative burden of
complying with the act and improves the protection of human health. Another
scheme I've proposed, which might work in the case of pesticide applicators
for example, is to have the supplier for the toxic material assume the
responsibility for disposal by mutual agreement with the many small businesses
which he supplies.

The point of this approach is to obtain quid pro quo. To relieve
the small generator of the administrative burden in exchange for an approach
which assures that human health will be adequately protected.

II. Heavily Impacted Industries

Most, if not all, of the industries cited by Roy Gamse as being heavily
impacted by the proposed hazardous waste management regulations are so
impacted because of the cost of adequately disposing of the toxic sludges
from waste water treatment plants. These plants, as you know, are required
by EPA in order to clean up the rivers. However, toxic waste inadequately
disposed on land are much more dangerous to human health than if they were
dumped in the river. I've heard of lots of fish kills but I've never heard
of any people being poisoned from toxic wastes in rivers, have you? But
we know of hundreds of cases of poisoning from land disposal.

I cannot comment on whether the burden on industry is or is not too
great. But if it is, then the assessment of the remedy should include not
requiring waste water treatment in the first place. I discussed this at
greater length in a memo I wrote on June 19 which
you have a copy. In that memo, I pointed out that if it is a given that
we cannot regulate the adequate disposal of toxic sludges from waste water
treatment plants then the better course would be to not require the plants
in the first place. This would have the dual advantage of improving the
protection of human health and saving tens of billions of dollars thus
aiding the fight against inflation.

In conclusion, let me reiterate that the ends which Mr. Drayton seeks
can be gained without sacrificing the health of the American public, indeed
we can even improve the protection of public health and save billions of
dollars and achieve everything Mr. Drayton says he wants to achieve by
exercising a little ingenuity.